Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20161115Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Vice-Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Brian McNellis, Ryan Walterscheid, Jesse Morris and Skippy Mesirow. Spencer McKnight and Keith Goode were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Andrea Bryan, Jessica Garrow, Phillip Supino and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Mesirow congratulated Mr. Morris on becoming a full member of P&Z replacing Mr. Jason Elliott. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Klob announced Mr. Jason Elliot resigned from P&Z as of October 25, 2016. Mr. Morris has decided to take the open regular positon on the board and Mr. McKnight will become the first alternate. The Clerk is currently taking applications and the interviews will occur early January. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES November 1, 2016 – Ms. Tygre motioned to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. All in favor, motion approved. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no declarations. OTHER BUSINESS AACP – Land Use Code Amendments Mr. Mesirow turned the floor over to Staff for a continued discussion of the proposed land use code amendments. Present from staff were Ms. Garrow, Mr. Supino and Mr. Barker. Also present was Ms. Sara Adams, BendonAdams, who has been consulting with staff on the amendments. Mr. Barker updated P&Z stating the amendments were presented to Council for a first reading at the meeting on November 15th with Council providing some feedback. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 2 Mr. Barker announced at tonight’s meeting they would provide a check-in on the Commercial Design Guidelines Public Amenity, then follow-up with additional discussion on use mix and dimensional standards, and close with parking. He then referred to p 34 of the packet and reviewed the most recent changes to guideline 1.13. He added it would be difficult to get more than the two ft specification with the direction to cap the height at 28 ft. Ms. Garrow stated this ties in to Ordinance 30, the miscellaneous ordinance with includes an exception for height which allows for Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and P&Z to review up to 18 in to be exempt from the height if it is a decorative element. Mr. Walterscheid asked if a neighboring building is at 28 ft in height, how much of his building would be limited to 26 ft. Ms. Garrow responded the entire building would be limited or the application could go before one of the boards for a review. Mr. Walterscheid then asked if the guidelines allow up to 18 in, would it not be preferable to have the height variation at 18 in instead of 2 ft. Mr. Mesirow suggested changing both to 2 ft to eliminate the difference. Mr. McNellis asked if the variation applies to a building that may span several 30 ft historic front facades. Mr. Barker responded this is not included in the current version. Staff noted they would incorporate some changes. Mr. Barker then reviewed the additions of numbers included with item 1.18 on p 36 of the agenda packet and asked P&Z if they felt the heights specified were necessary and appropriate. Mr. McNellis thinks you would want to see what is around the entry in context. He believes articulation and variation are important. Ms. Adams stated this is probably more related to the Mountain Base Area than the Commercial Core (CC) Area. Mr. McNellis suggested this area be called out. Ms. Garrow asked it makes more sense to modify this section to be more general and then move the more specific language to the Mountain Base Area or should the entire guideline go away as a general item across all character areas. Mr. McNellis replied in general, he would prefer 10 ft if it stays as a general item. Mr. Walterscheid asked what part is specifically eight or twelve ft. Staff remarked they would clarify this in the guideline. Ms. Adams noted it refers to the door itself. Commercial Design Guidelines – Public Amenity Mr. Barker then moved on to guideline PA.3 on p 46 of the agenda packet. He feels this is a key item with Council to ensure the spaces are usable and functional for public amenity. He spoke to the last bullet item of the street-level pedestrian amenity space requiring a minimum of one third (1/3) of the requirement. Based on an example of a 6,000 sf lot in downtown and the amenity requirement is 25% which necessitate at least 500 sf for one of the public amenity space. He asked if the one third (1/3) amount seemed appropriate. Ms. Adams added the guideline attempts to address an application which attempts to add up all the little nooks on a property to count as their amenity space. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 3 Mr. Mesirow asked if this was only for street level and Ms. Adams confirmed that was true. Mr. Morris noted the last statement of the bullet provides the flexibility to allow for variation based on the proposed amenity space of the application. Mr. Barker responded this would potentially allow for a situation where a space smaller than one third (1/3) of the requirement was proposed and it best considering the context of the block. Mr. Walterscheid asked what separates the public amenity space when you have setbacks and may it adjoin public right-of-ways (ROWs). Ms. Adams stated it will be for P&Z to look at the guideline to determine if a space is meaningful, useful and accessible. Mr. Barker asked if there was anything else under this guideline (PA.3) that might be helpful in defining if a space is truly pedestrian or public amenity. Mr. Mesirow stated previously it was discussed to have some mechanism to acknowledge public spaces. He mentioned posting a sign, medallion or website. Ms. Adams noted there are details to cover hard to find or interior courtyards, but not for street level areas. Mr. Mesirow feels it is valuable because even street level seems to be off limits. Mr. Barker then discussed second floor pedestrian amenities on p 48 of the agenda packet. He stated they have not yet added anything related to the amount of transparency. He noted PA.10 states it must be visible from the street, but it doesn’t describe how or what makes it visible. He asked P&Z if there should be a minimum transparency level of the railing or some other requirement. Ms. Adams remarked as an example, the parapet is so high at 204 Galena (Gap Building), you can’t actually hear or see people on the roof. Mr. Morris asked where the space is accessed from and Mr. Barker remarked from the side. Mr. McNellis stated it is another reason why the ground level amenity spaces are that much more necessary. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there could be some way to clarify the use of open space. He noted the picture of BB’s Kitchen patio taken up entirely by dining tables and noted if you’re not a patron, you would not be allowed to sit there. Ms. Garrow responded staff is considering changing it from public amenity to pedestrian amenity because the word ‘public’ implies anyone can use the space. Mr. Mesirow asked if the intent is that you can either patronize or pass through but not loiter. Ms. Garrow confirmed this is true unless you are a paying customer. Mr. Walterscheid asked if Council had provided feedback. Ms. Garrow stated they have seen it at its first reading and expect it to be a topic of discussion at the second reading. Mr. McNellis noted a patio or deck is an element to energize the street and Ms. Adams stated that is how they want to treat it and noted there are potential legal issues in defining when determining when someone can access private property. Ms. Adams Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 4 stated it has been site specific approvals to date. The Sky Hotel and Base Lodge were brought up as examples. Ms. Garrow noted The Sky Hotel met their public amenity requirement at grade and the roof-top deck was an add on which the applicant volunteered to designate it as public amenity space. Ms. Adams noted Base Lodge did the same. Ms. Garrow noted a public access easement requirement is in the current draft and she feels it is a legitimate discussion with HPC and P&Z when the space offered is not at grade. Mr. McNellis stated he would love to see the flexibility built into the guidelines and would favor the amenity on the first floor. Ms. Adams replied this matches the feedback from the community. Mr. Walterscheid suggested in some instances an external access may promote a visual connection to the space. Ms. Adams replied they want to respect traditional building patterns and keep it open for the architect to design it appropriately. Ms. Tygre remarked PA.13 does not make sense. Ms. Adams responded she would work on the wording of it. Mr. Barker then moved on to review the Midblock pedestrian amenity on p 50 of the agenda packet. He stated there are a few instances of this and asked if this is something that would be acceptable in the Commercial Core. Ms. Adams stated Midblock has been in the code for approximately 10-15 years and she is not aware of any applications with it. Ms. Garrow noted the only application that proposed this was the Weinerstube. Staff feels this amenity might need a boost and is proposing it counts for double the value. Mr. Barker added this ties in with the second tier commercial proposals. Mr. Mesirow agrees with the approach and asked if a particular methodology for determining the doubled value. Ms. Adams stated they decided to double it as an incentive and added staff would be happy to entertain other ideas. Mr. Walterscheid asked if an owner owned three blocks and wanted to take advantage of this; would it have to be internal to their project. He asked as an example, if the Art Museum had pulled their setback from the building next door, would this have counted as a Midblock amenity. Ms. Adams stated this would not a midblock. He also noted the walkway beside the old Stage 3 Building. Ms. Adams stated the midblock space must provide access to additional commercial space. Mr. Barker asked if a minimal distance should be specified. Mr. Walterscheid is curious if the midblock spaces would become dead space and suggested providing clarity regarding minimal widths in relation to the block length or something similar. Ms. Garrow asked if would be appropriate to allow this in areas other than commercial and neighborhood mixed use areas, noting the three visuals provided are in the CC. Mr. McNellis feels it could also be applied to other areas such as the Mountain Base and River Approach. Others agreed and added CC. Mr. Walterscheid asked if it needs to be open to the sky. Ms. Adams replied there has been a lot of discussion on this and currently it is required to be open to the sky based on comments from Council. Mr. McNellis agrees with having it open. Mr. Walterscheid agreed also and asked if non- permanent awnings would be allowed. Ms. Garrow and Ms. Adams felt this may be appropriate to provide shelter and define entrances. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 5 Mr. McNellis asked there are additional Midblock pedestrian amenity opportunities. Ms. Garrow responded it will be interesting to see if applicants want to take advantage of this opportunity. The counting double should be an incentive. P&Z and council have purview of this decision. Justin feels the added weight of onsite public amenity space instead of the cash-in-lieu option may provide more opportunity. Mr. Barker then discussed the Mountain Base character area as described on p 94 of the agenda packet. He reviewed the following items which were new to this version and asked P&Z for feedback. 6.1 – He stated the 15,000 sf value was a quick estimate. 6.4 – He stated the same language existed is in the River Approach Character Area guidelines and it was previously suggested to copy it to this character issue. Mr. Mesirow asked what it means to break a lot into smaller volumes (6.1) and was concerned if forcing separate buildings would impact the operations (6.4). Mr. Barker noted there are some logistical issues breaking up a building, but it may be possibly accomplished with a one story connection or something smaller instead of a continuous mass of volume. Ms. Adams stated there are quite a few instances in this area already that has a number of separate buildings on one property. She feels it makes sense based on the access to the property and the ability to centrally locate amenities such as a pool. She reviewed the lot sizes of the area and determined the average size is approximately 15,000 sf unless you look a one of the larger compounds such as the St. Regis. She believes breaking down a lot can be accomplished in a lot of different ways which keeps the neighborhood creative. Factors may include massing, height, materials, windows, and setbacks. Mr. Mesirow feels keeping the method of breakdown more general would be fine at this time. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels this would have been useful when reviewing the Gorsuch Haus application and others agreed. Mr. Mesirow stated he still was not comfortable with item 6.1. Ms. Adams stated options for the building to be considered could include exterior walkways instead of interior corridors to open up a building and bring vitality to the street. Mr. Mesirow mentioned the tunnel recently built may turn in to hyper-exclusive areas and goes against the idea of getting out and mixing. He doesn’t want to encourage private clubs. Ms. Garrow responded private clubs are not allowed and another tunnel would never be approved again. She noted the recently approved Lift One Lodge is an example of a large lot broken in to two different masses. Mr. McNellis asked staff to consider identifying a successful example. Ms. Tygre mentioned The Gant as an example and Ms. Garrow mentioned The Alps. Mr. Barker closed stating the will probably circle back with P&Z in early January for the last review. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the use of the word ‘consider’ allows applicants to consider and then ignore guidelines. Ms. Adams stated it is meant to provide items to contemplate while recognizing all buildings and their context are different. He feels it may be a bit passive and asked staff to consider more forceful language. Ms. Garrow asked the board to forward any suggestions regarding the use of words to Mr. Barker. Ms. Adams then left the meeting. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 6 Ms. Reilly Thimons, Planner Tech, then joined the meeting. Mr. Supino listed the other areas to be reviewed, noting if there something not covered at the meeting, P&Z should reach out to staff with their ideas. Ms. Garrow pointed out the use of colored numbers in the left-hand margin which correspond with the ordinance. They only called out the main policy items changed. Mr. Supino reviewed the proposed changes related to use mix within zone districts. He stated in regards to the approach for the commercial use mix, per Council, they created generalized use categories instead of listing all the individual uses to be allowed. A table of the uses per commercial zone district was provided in the memo starting on p 304. They also revised the zone definitions and purpose statements to be more relevant to current conditions of the different zone districts and provide more illustration as to what the City would like to see in a particular zone district in the future. He noted they refined the allowed uses in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) zones within the use categories to reflect the current era. The residential uses were basically eliminated from the Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) zones. Affordable housing is allowed in all five commercial zone districts, but the extent to which they are allowed is more limited in regards to the floor area ration (FAR). This is based on Council’s direction to preserve the buildings in CC and C1 as commercial buildings. Stand alone, free market residential uses are allowed in the Mixed Use (MU) zone district, but not in a MU building. It must be a one off residential only building. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the FAR limitations prevent affordable housing on the site for a total build out. Ms. Garrow responded probably not in every situation and would depend on what was proposed. She stated it may if a policy change in growth management goes forward or not. Council is interested in requiring affordable housing mitigation for spaces that never previously mitigated. Currently, you get a credit for existing space and mitigate the net new. If the building built prior to required mitigation went through redevelopment, they would have 100% of the commercial space to mitigate for so they probably would not be able to achieve the affordable housing onsite. The applicant would need to use credits or cash-in-lieu. Mr. Supino added another relevant, related policy is that residential in the CC and C1 zone districts will no longer be able to generate credits. A development may mitigate some portion of the affordable housing onsite, but the development of the units can’t generate credits. Council did not want to create any incentive for providing residential onsite where they prefer to see primarily commercial uses. Ms. Garrow noted the change is ratio is limited to 0.75:1 for downtown properties. A couple of weeks ago it was 0.25:1 and P&Z felt it was too limiting. Mr. Walterscheid asked if you could have a standalone affordable housing if it is a single use, but multiple units. Mr. Supino stated multifamily affordable housing was acceptable. Mr. Supino then discussed second-tier commercial spaces as presented in the use mix ordinance and commercial design guidelines. Based on Council’s direction, the goal is to created affordable spaces to locally-owned or lower-yield business models. On the land use code side, there are a number of ways they are trying to accomplish this goal. A commercial replacement program will be created which will be similar to the multi-family program requiring existing net commercial space to remain on the property. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 7 Ms. Garrow referred P&Z to p 294 of the packet noting it as a new section within the commercial design standards for second-tier commercial space. And on the next page, there are some numbers for discussion. Mr. Walterscheid asked why CC is the smallest value of the zone districts. Ms. Garrow responded the CC is where there is a concentration of high-end retail stores and will likely remain this way. Mr. Supino stated the reduced percentage for CC acknowledges the existing development pattern in CC and the ability to even provide access to a second story commercial space is not available. Mr. Mesirow asked for the average sf of a building in CC. Staff did not know the exact value, but estimated given a 6,000 sf lot at 2:1, would be 10,000-12,000 sf. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she feels very cynical and her gut thought is for 2,000 sf of second tier space rather than a 6,000 sf glass store front. Mr. Supino stated this would be in addition to the street level store. Ms. McNicholas stated limiting the free market residential frames this. Mr. Mesirow likes the approach but can’t confirm the numbers reflect reality. Mr. Morris asked if the numbers are benchmarks from other communities that have taken this approach. Ms. Garrow stated no one else has taken this approach. Ms. Garrow stated in growth management, the alley store review is an administrative review currently and sized at 600 sf or less with no access to the main street. Staff has carried this through to this. Ms. Garrow asked if there should or should not be a size limitation. Mr. Walterscheid stated he can’t imagine how he could present a project and tell you what is there and what is not. Instead of making an applicant account for what was there and how much is being saved, he feels there should just be a flat requirement. Ms. Garrow noted it is easy to have a percentage for a public amenity. With this you are doing net leasable calculations and then determine if it is a first or second-tier space using the guidelines. Mr. Walterscheid stated even to do the net leasable calculations on a multiuse building may require six meetings. The amount of time and associated costs spent trying to de-value one part of the building raises the value on the rest of the building. Ms. Garrow asked what if was tied to lot size. Mr. Walterscheid feels replacing the calculations with a flat requirement would be best. He feels the expense is then passed to the person leasing the space. Ms. Garrow if the flat rate would be on the building or lot size. Mr. Walterscheid feels it is a much bigger discussion to determine the value. Ms. Garrow stated of all things going on in the moratorium, there is no silver bullet on use mix. It is a combination of many things to reach the community goals. Mr. Supino asked if the hard percentage would apply to the commercial replacement. Mr. Walterscheid stated he is a proponent of the second-tier space, but he doesn’t want to minimize their need. He would prefer to figure out an average replacement or second-tier space and just apply it everywhere. Ms. Tygre agreed and added you don’t want to tie it to what was there previously if something better can work. She believes you are encouraging people to replace the percentage that previously existed and is not necessarily what is wanted. A minimum amount of space may be best regardless of what was previously in the space. Mr. Mesirow suggested picking ten or so buildings that currently reflect an acceptable use mix to calculate an average the amount. Mr. Walterscheid felt surveying existing properties to determine the value would be a good approach. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 8 Mr. Walterscheid asked if the basement of the replaced Gap building could be defined as second-tier and Ms. Garrow responded it would. He feels a lot of people are taking advantage of the basement space. Ms. Garrow suggested a 100% of the lot area is second-tier meaning they could do half on the second floor and half in the basement or all in the basement. She added tying it to the lot area is easier. She stated it sounds like a lot of space, but is small considering the total sf that may be built on the lot. Mr. Walterscheid feels the businesses in the spaces are successful when they are visually noticed from the street level. Mr. Supino then discussed the Essential Business Overlay zone (EBO) and noted only the NC and S/C/I zone districts allow for a voluntary rezoning for the overlay to include the EBO. He stated it does not change the underlying zoning. Some of the incentives would open up use types and proportions of FAR within the use types as well as some setback changes. The heights of the two zone districts would not change based on the EBO overlay. His best example was as part of a redevelopment; an applicant could explore live-work spaces. He then asked P&Z to identify possible incentives which could be dimensional or related to use. He also asked if this should be limited to NC and S/C/I zone districts as well as tools to make this more attractive and effective. Mr. McNellis feels it is great idea. Mr. Morris asked about incentives that have been discussed. Mr. Supino responded they feel the most appropriate would be changes to setbacks and proportions of FAR. He also feels it may allow for specific use types not attractive on its own. Ms. Garrow it also allows for alternative dimensional requirements without going through a Planned Development (PD). Ms. Tygre cautioned staff including the work-live spaces and feels this is most open to abuse. She feels most will just live and not work. She noted an example in the past when a woman was going to have a dance studio combined with an apartment. The space was eventually filled with architect offices. She feels residential drives everything and does not feel it is appropriate in S/C/I because it should be business-focused. She also feels it will end up like downtown commercial is currently. Mr. Supino stated they could add something to ensure it is not free market residential. Ms. Tygre responded enforcement would be difficult to which Ms. Garrow agreed. Mr. Mesirow stated in terms of use, he noted shared collaborative or co-working spaces may be considered. He feel upstarts need a place to land. He also noted a hostel may be appropriate. Mr. Walterscheid echoed Mr. Mesirow and noted there are no apartments or hostels currently available within the community. He feels with the proposed changes eliminating housing downtown will move everyone to the business center, Basalt or further down the valley. He feels we are focused on keeping business here, but we will lose people. He is curious how Council plans to respond. Ms. Garrow stated initial conversations also included micro-units and resident occupied (RO) units. Council has pushed this off until after the moratorium. Mr. Morris strongly recommend as part of the EBO overlay, a certain very specific residential uses be carved out as allowable uses including micro-housing and shared work spaces. Mr. Mesirow strongly agreed. Mr. Supino asked if this included anything that was not deed restricted or affordable to which both Mr. Morris and Mr. Mesirow replied no. Mr. Supino asked if different dimensions and occupancy standards should be considered and both replied yes. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 9 Ms. McNicholas feels this may be wading away from the intent of the EBO by focusing on economic diversity within town and perhaps focus should be on the uses within the zones rather than the tool. Mr. Walterscheid stated there are times P&Z reviews properties for livability standards related to the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). He would be inclined to allow more of this type of discussion and perhaps keep the bulk of the development to commercial. He feels there may be an opportunity for further discussion. Ms. Garrow stated in terms of livability, staff has reformatted the review standards in the Growth Management ordinance (p 366, section 26 at the bottom). She asked P&Z to review and comment if any review criteria or standards are missing P&Z wants to have when evaluating applications. Mr. Mesirow asked if a hostel would be allowed in the new use categories. Mr. Supino stated lodging has been removed. He added perhaps defining it as forms of temporary/shared housing instead of housing. Ms. Garrow suggested dorm-style housing. Mr. Walterscheid suggested using ‘seasonal’ to describe the type of housing. Mr. Supino then discussed the dimensional standards in the zone districts. High level from Council included the following. Ms. Garrow added staff is not sure Council will approve the decorative element part.  Reduce FAR to correspond with reduced building heights in commercial zones  Reduce building heights – 28 ft max with exemption of 18” of decorative to be approved by P&Z or HPC  Update internal FAR to reflect desired uses Mr. Walterscheid noted currently there is an exception for railing and parapet walls up to approximately five ft and is curious how this may be changed. He added he likes roof-top decks. Ms. Garrow stated they have not heard from Council yet on this matter. Mr. Supino asked in regards to a parapet exemption of 18 in of discretion and it was tied to the top of plate, then it could lead to three ft parapet. Mr. Walterscheid noted currently it is tied to the top of the structure which is very specific at this time. He feels it may be challenging if the rules are changed. Mr. Supino asked from a design standpoint, does 18 in get you anywhere. Mr. Walterscheid replied it gets you a cornice. He noted P&Z has had numerous conversations regarding roof-top decks. He added as you are coming down the ski hill, the roof is another side of a building that should be taken advantage of and he would rather see it used and planted rather than gravel roofs with mechanical on it. Mr. Supino then moved to the subject of internal floor area allotments. He asked if P&Z wanted to walk through the different allowances. He noted they are all tied to overall FAR. Mr. McNellis asked for the differences. Ms. Garrow responded everything decreases. Right now you can have a three story building on one side of the street and in the CC there is a 2.75:1 that decreases to a Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 10 2:1. Moving out, the overall ratio continues to go down. In C1, currently it is a 2.25:1 and will go down 1.75:1. Council wants the highest FAR in the CC zone district where the more traditional buildings cover the entire lot typically. As you move out, it may be desirable to see more outside public amenity and provide for on-site parking. Lodging stays the same in both zones which is 0.5:1 and can go up to 1.5:1 depending on average room size. Free market stays the same and affordable housing decreases. There really are not a lot of FAR changes in S/C/I other than the limiting the free market for an overall at 2.25:1 to potentially accommodate a three story building. In NC, lodging is removed so the internal FAR goes away and the overall FAR is proposed at 1.5:1 which is what it is now. The allowable FAR for affordable housing is 0.75:1 and MU is provided as a table (p 324) because staff intends to propose a value for the Main St Historic District and another value for other MU areas. The maximum FAR without a special review goes to 1:1 and non-historic areas is 1.5:1 which would require a special review with P&Z. Ms. Garrow noted this is the only district in which you could do 100% affordable housing or an affordable housing credits project. Free market is limited to a 0.5:1 and could be increased to 0.75:1 if there is equal affordable housing. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the residential multi-family area remains as is. Ms. Garrow stated Council is interested in looking at it as it relates to the commercial zone districts. Mr. Walterscheid noted the discussion seems to allow for more courtyards and he asked when floor area is calculated for space below grade with an exposed wall area, you are now increasing the floor area. He understands the decision to minimize the bulk of the building but if courtyards are included, the floor area will be further decreased. He feels it is something to consider and few people will understand it. Ms. Garrow stated Council asked staff to run through previously approved project to see if they could still be built or not. Mr. McNellis feels the FAR reductions may prevent capitalization of the second-tier spaces. He wonders if there might be a bonus incentive for second-tier spaces. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels a walled-in basement space and a courtyard basement space are the same and asked if they are being treated differently. Ms. Garrow stated part of what staff is working on includes identifying areas of contradiction and encouraged P&Z to let staff know if they see something. Ms. Reilly Thimons provided background for parking and mobility, noting consultants hired over the past summer conducted research and came back with four areas (listed below) representing strong opportunities for code updates. These are in line with Council’s direction for the following. a) Incorporate the Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) and the off-street parking chapters together b) Increase the use of alternative modes of transportation c) Reduce vehicle trips d) Increase the availability of off-street parking She reviewed a table of code options, use mix and commercial design standards to address the four areas. Their efforts include:  Introducing the concept of a soft parking maximum and basically retaining the current requirements. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 11  Look into updating the fee which is currently $30,000. They have asked the consultants to look into the real cost of parking as compared to similar cities.  Look to expand the language in the cash-in-lieu section of the off-street parking requirements so it is more robust in how it defines how the funds may be used.  The consultant conducted a study at ten different sites across town with different uses identified there is a significant amount of parking in structures that is not being used to its fullest capacity.  The study also identified seasonal and daily parking peaks which may allow the City to move into a shared parking management system which may assist with building infrastructure.  Both Council and the consultant spoke to incorporating the TIA into the off-street parking chapter to push for alternative modes and incentives. The goal is to create a mobility requirement and not just a parking requirement. Mr. Morris stated he fully supports the integration of parking with mobility and asked staff to speak to the allowable uses of the funds. Ms. Garrow pointed P&Z to the mobility improvement calculations table on p 407 and stated when an applicant provides their TIA, it is a combination of multi-modal levels of service (MMLOS) which includes infrastructure and transportation demand management (TDM) which includes the program piece (car share, car-to-go, bus passes and We-Cycle). The MMLOS and TDM are pulled together with parking and cash to satisfy mobility units. She stated the parking impact requirements table on p 409 identifies the percentage of each to meet the mobility requirement. Mr. Supino added the language creates a clear relationship between the collection of cash-in-lieu and the City making direct investments in pedestrian and parking infrastructure and multi-modal infrastructure. Mr. Morris asked how funds are utilized and if there is science behind which of the mechanisms to use to achieve outcomes. He suggested maintaining a level of flexibility in how the funds are distributed. Ms. Garrow directed P&Z to review item 2 – Use of Funds which specifically outlines how the funds can be used. She stated right now it goes to the bottom line of transportation and parking. Staff is trying to create a better framework. She asked P&Z to review and provide suggestions in this area. Ms. Garrow noted per state law the funds can’t be used for operations so there may be unintended consequences such as unfunded mandates when the funds are used to improve a particular program. Staff is trying to work through this. Mr. McNellis is excited with the shared parking program. Ms. Thimons noted there are two scenarios. One going forward in the new code language and one potentially through an amendment allowing for existing developments to take part in the program. The recent study identified a lot of inefficient parking scenarios in the downtown core. They would like to push people away from this using the cash-in-lieu fee. They looked at locations with large amount of existing parking that could be participating in a shared parking with the City. The new development shared parking comes in when you hit your soft maximum. For example, if there another development similar to the Aspen Meadows, which has land to provide parking, a number of spaces above their soft parking maximum would be identified for use by the public. Council has asked Staff what it would take to have existing properties voluntarily participate in a shared parking program. Ms. Garrow stated right now the properties are PDs so they would have to go through a PD amendment. Staff is looking at a special review with P&Z instead of the PD amendment process. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 12 Ms. McNicholas Kury asked why it would need to come to P&Z. Ms. Garrow stated because it is land use, to unwind it may require a board if it is a minor PD amendment. Mr. Walterscheid feels it opens up opportunity for an existing property and Ms. McNicholas Kury agreed. Mr. Walterscheid asked if any steps are being taken to direct applicants away from the PD process and utilize the underlying zoning through the moratorium discussion. Ms. Garrow replied they have not gone there. Ms. Garrow added Referendum 1 and the lengthy review process keeps applicants from pursuing the PD process. Ms. Tygre stated she does not understand mobility improvements and how it will get people out of cars. Ms. Garrow stated the table on p 409 best illustrates Council’s direction for the CC and C1 zones. Council has discussed what is the highest and best use of limited land in these areas that are really more pedestrian oriented, eliminating on-site parking as well as pushing people towards cash-in-lieu to be used for broader infrastructure. She added in the other areas, allowing for 100% parking space. Ms. Tygre doesn’t seem to relate to getting people out of their cars. Mr. Supino said the approach is if we build it, hopefully it will be used because the City can’t physically remove people from cars. Mr. Mesirow stated you can eliminate the spots where they land and drive their cars and would prefer a stronger approach. Mr. McNellis stated he was surprised the minimum requirement remains the same. Mr. Morris agreed and stated there are precedence of other cities and jurisdictions that have eliminated off- street parking requirements completely and it has worked. He stated there are also examples to Ms. Tygre’s point noting if new spaces are built, cars will come, but if the money is put into other solutions there is no guarantee people will get out of their cars. Ms. Tygre is not sure the efforts presented will remove cars. She feels there are more cars and they are just circling. She added just reducing parking is not the answer and we already have buses and other things and there are still cars downtown. Mr. Walterscheid noted the more convenient ways created for people to not actually use their cars, the less likely they will. Mr. Morris stated if the goal is to make the City more pedestrian friendly, then what was presented does not have enough teeth. Mr. McNellis stated reducing parking spaces is probably the best tool available for physically removing people from cars. Mr. Walterscheid suggested preventing cars in the core during specified hours. Ms. Garrow pointed out this is dealing with requirements for development and in conjunction with this effort, there are ongoing discussions about parking rates and expanded no drive zones. Ms. Garrow stated those are discussions with Parking and Transportation primarily. She has heard ideas from the consultant on how to manage the street parking resources differently as well as increase utilization of the parking garage. Ms. Garrow stated the conversations here need to focus on the site. She asked if reducing minimums or reducing percentages allowed for parking or something similar was preferred. Ms. McNicholas asked if it could be tied to use such as no spots provided for restaurants. Mr. Morris suggested eliminating off- street parking requirements. The majority of the board stated they would support greatly removing off- street parking requirements. Ms. Garrow closed Staff’s presentation stating the goal is to have all the code amendments completed by January 23rd. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 15, 2016 13 ADJOURN Mr. Mesirow then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager